If, as I believe, that man is not largely the cause of global warming, then our governments will waste an estimated 30 Trillion dollars on the fallacious crisis.

The belief in the man-made cause is unbelievable political, obstinate and unscientific. Sure there is science supporting the contention, but it has become more of a religion than science.

The established nature of scientific revolution is that it takes a long time for the mindset to change to the new consensus. So we will be stuck in this current mindset for sometime longer. I just hope we don’t waste 30 Trillion dollars before the world wakes up.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5672#more

i for one confess to cashing in on global
warming

as can anybody with access to the sharemarket

(that is anyone with internet access )

Alarmism implies there’s a problem, and solving problems obviously needs money.

> How do scientists benefit from more taxes and bureaucracies? Do you suppose scientists don’t pay taxes? And do you imagine that scientists get the research $$ in their own hip pocket?

No, your regular scientists doesn’t stand to make millions like Gore and others high up in the green-industrial complex. They will though keep funds coming to bolster science jobs and research grants.

> Your alarmist conspiracy theories are laughable.
I claim no conspiracy, merely systemic bias.

This is incorrect.

The state ultimately derives its revenue from national income.

If, as the deniorati claim, global warming is a myth, then efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will reduce potential gowth in national income, albeit slightly, for no offsetting benefit in future years.

In that case the state would not, as you claim, be the main beneficiary of policies designed to mitigate emissions and it would therefore have no incentive to promote them by sponsoring so-called “alarmism”.

Therefore the state only has an interest in pursuing mitigation policies if the scientists are right.

Anyway, it’s not as if the state needs global warming to justify a new way of raising revenue.

The real problem is pseudo-science, such as the IPCC practices (two thirds of whom are spin doctors rather than scientists).

This is just name calling and assertions. Everything the IPCC reports is peer reviewed, from leading journals. It represent a conservative summary of the evidence avaliable.

The real incentive for profits is from the fossil fuel oligarchs who are trying to sell doubt. That is where you can find the pseudo-science, pushed by the pseudo-skeptics.

Have you determined which way the bias is directed? Or is this a pet theory with no data?

My hypothesis is that the current bias is towards inquiry and advancement of understanding.

I am concerned about a developing trend requiring universities to partner with commercial institution. However this bias would be in favour of established industries (like big coal).